Applicant summoned under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC challenged rejection of his discharge application. The High Court found no illegality since no material beyond the summoning stage existed, disposed of the application, directing appearance within two weeks and liberty to seek bail and future discharge applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143356
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21974 of 2024
Applicant :- Shankar Jatav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Vishal Kumar Sonkar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State.
The applicant was summoned along with other co-accused to face trial in Complaint Case No.60 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station - Gajraula, District- Amroha, by a summoning order dated 17.11.2022 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
The said order was challenged before this Court at the instance of all summoned accused persons including applicant by way of filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 20242 of 2023, which was disposed of without interfering with said order with a liberty to file a discharge application by an order dated 18.08.2023.
The applicant filed a discharge application through his Advocate without appearance which was rejected by order dated 22.04.2024, mainly on ground that there was no other material before learned Trial Court except the material available at the stage of summoning order. The trial was not reached up to the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C., therefore, application so filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was considered as an application filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. and was rejected.
Learned counsel for applicant could not convince this Court that since summoning order was not interfered by this Court, there was no other material before learned Trial Court to consider the discharge application, therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order, however, after the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C., if learned Trial Court is of opinion that no case is made out against the accused if unrebutted, he could be discharged under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., otherwise also applicant will have liberty to file an application under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C.
The Court also takes note that applicant has not appeared before learned Trial Court, therefore, without interfering with impugned order, this application is disposed of with a direction that applicant shall appear before learned Trial Court within two weeks and thereafter, if any bail application is filed by applicant, the same will be considered and decided by learned Trial Court, in accordance with law.
In case, other co-accused still have not appeared before learned Trial Court, Trial Court may take coercive measures, if already not initiated.
Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 4.9.2024 P. Pandey
Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the discharge application rejected for lack of fresh material after non-interference with summoning order warranted interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10 provisions across 2 enactments
Shankar Jatav
State of U.P.
Another
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
